ML20040F997

Response to Sh Lewis 820128 Ltr,To Corrections in Transcript & to Fr Romano 820129 Statement

ML20040F997
Person / Time
Site:	Limerick
Issue date:	02/04/1982
From:	Anthony R ANTHONY, R.L.
To:	NRC COMMISSION (OCM)
References
NUDOCS 8202110056
Download: ML20040F997 (1)

Text

~ "

GoPf t=og E&cRs hveY JVINJ S% < Co.4v11iSS ' .

To tha U.S.UUCLEAR REGULADORY COMUISS. RE: Phila',:'Elec. Linsrick GanSta. # 50-352 Vashington,D.C. 20555 50-353 RESPOUSE OF INTERVENOR ROBERTL. AUTHOUZ TO LSfTER OF 1/28/82 AND EUCLOSURES FROM STEPHEN H.LEUIS,COUUSEL 22 FEB -? P5 42 1.NUREG-0885.I do not know whether I an looking at (the, correct M

document as there is no heading or identification e=ceptS;" Policy and Planning Guidance". If this is actually a sample of 0885,and:Itsuppose, indeed,it surely is,it would be useful for ne to review the whole doc-unent. Would it be possible for you to nail ne a complete 0885 ?

I like the proposed policy on" adequate levels of protectbon of public health and safety" The iten on"operationna data"and " assessment of licensce performance" is related to ny contention I-54 andalso applies to the recent rupture and release of radioactive water from the primary to the secondary systen at the R.E.Ginna nuclear reactor, Rochester,N.Y.

The latter accidant brings new caterial to this contention.

I as puzzled by the policy on citirq as there have been no new citing requests in three years for nuclear plants,1f I an correct. Uill the

" radioactive source tern" tp be published in 1983 coneltde that the Limerick citing poses tcogreat a hazard and the plant cannot be licensed. If that is so,I request that in fairness to P.E. ,its customers,and the residents in prospective danger that this procesc be speeded and this finding be settled in the next nonths,not in tuo yeard.

2. Fed.Res.v.y10 Fri,1/15/8213C 10 cFR Parts 2&50 . Page 2301, The statement on " authoritarian obsession with the avoiding of public challenge" is new nat';erial bearing on ny dontentions I-5),V-1,V-2,Vd ,

VII2,andVII-11. Page 2302 brings new naterial to reinforce Contention I-53 3i. Order extending Combletion Date (4/24/81) I cannot understand hou a request dated Feb.23,1981 to extend a deadline uhich was to expire in about one month on April 1,1931, nas considered by the 1:RC and ertended to 1935. Such a late (rassert,u .tinely) request should not have been considered without a through public hearing and consequently I non chal-1erce this action and add this as a nen Cbntention. I also challenge

/e(the-URC sed enterfinding that no neu this challenge environ as a ental inpact statenent was required new Contention. -

9 50

~

.\ S g RESPC:!SS TO CCRRICTIOIIS II-i T?.!O! SCRIPT A!!D Fald!K R.RO:'dd!O

.(:/n

• f 1/29/82. /O V , g/ STATE:IE'!T ,BOTH DATED dE 1.Transcrint fron Morristoun 1/6-1/8/82. Than1C you for: tef1 ding OS%she_ corrections but they uill be of no use to ne if I have to go to

^

08 Mtstown to see the transcript,because the distance is not nanageable.

~

S8 Uill you hindly let ne 1 mon hhere in the innediate' Phila. area it is o accessible to intervenors.

m:s:

ou 2. Copy of Ronano statement of 1/26/82. Since Hr.Ronano certified 30 he had served the list,I,of course received a copy. 'fny a duplicate.

7 con:/ fron the 12C Docketin:- Branch? I an appalled by the naste of tine,

~

paper,and postage. I protest this waste of nine and all taxpayers'noney on.o certify tlmt I as notifyirs the service list. _a_

p. s. MM fnc&hL e 4 */i/r1- &&k &%L FAq mea.ho .